Actually, the **real ** danger is when the two entities get in cahoots with each other. But it’s the government that has the guns.
And, perhaps, the government that be more easily restrained through political processor? 
Well, your points are interesting, but when I used “human nature” I was thinking of gluttony. For some people there is no such thing as enough. If their neighbor has 100 acres they need 200. I’m not a communist – I believe this energy can be harnessed for good in a regulated marketplace. But libertarianism provides no effective checks on this human weakness. The inevitable result over time is concentration of more and more resources in fewer and fewer hands. You can say “we’d have laws against robber barrons, etc.,” but the lawmakers can and will be bought off. And monopolies can arise from situations in which no coercion (in the libertarian sense) has taken place.
[/quote]
To be clear, I have not said that early America was “useless.” Nor have I mentioned “fatal flaws.” In fact I’ve argued that we have progressed to a more libertarian state (which would argue against any kind of “fatal” flaw). I merely question that the pre-1900 time period was more libertarian than the present, according to the values that libertarians themselves espouse. But this is going around in circles at this point…
- Life spans are much longer now – consequently there are fewer workers to support the elderly.
- People are having fewer kids – ditto.
- Most families have a hard time living on one income, therefore women (the traditional caregivers) must work instead of care for aging relatives.
- The idea that the clients my agency serves are “free of burden or care” is absurd. Most are in extreme health and/or financial circumstances. They need specialized help that children cannot provide. They are the highest-cost clients. You would put them on the street?
- Why is “depending on your kids” a good thing? Is emotional coercion OK? Most older people I’ve met abhor the idea of being a burden to their kids. Government can help spread risk so that parents can live independently AND their kids can live freer lives. Sounds good to me.
It would help if you could present some kind of objective evidence here, not just your intuition. Looking around the world we see that most liberal democratic governments (Sweden, France, Germany, Japan) have extremely low rates of poverty. No only that, the more liberal they are (Sweden, Norway), the lower the rates of poverty. Historically, the rise of the liberal democratic state has corresponded to dramatic reductions in poverty. Though I disagree that the early US was more libertarian overall, I agree that it was in an ecomonic/small gov’t sense. And poverty was higher.
Correlations doesn’t prove causation, but in the social sciences they’re usually the best you can do. I should add that, being an empiricist, I’m all in favor of this idea of libertarians taking over a state to try out their ideas (but please, not WA state).
There probably are some who think that way… but there are many more who genuinely need help. I don’t understand this fixation of conservatives/libertarians … the obsession that somewhere, someone is “getting over on me.” Who cares? I don’t stay awake at night worrying that my neighbor is cheating the meter reader. As you admit, there is no perfect system. In a welfare-type system some people will take advantage (again, human nature), and we should do our best to weed them out. But that doesn’t negate the real needs of the majority of people being helped.
Sounds nice, but completely contradicted by the facts of the past 40 years. Rates of disability of seniors on Medicaid/Medicare/SS have declined dramatically. Life spans have increased dramatically. Now of course medical advances are a big reason for this, but how do you pay for those if you’ve been just a bit less fortunate in life?
Also, under the current system, many seniors DO chose to continue working. Many chose not to. That’s what I call “freedom.” Having the ability to chose between working/not working is much healthier situation than being forced to work. Under your system many will work until they literally drop dead.
There are several problems here, but let me point out the obvious one. If people know they have some security in later life (Medicare, Medicaid, SS) they will be more willing to give to charity, not less. Your libertarian system forces people to think much farther ahead in life, scrounging every penny to guard against bad investments, recessions, etc. Government provides a permanence, a type of insurance, that no private charity or corporation can offer. People can think outside themselves, knowing that no matter what happens, at least their basic needs will be met. And this benefit accrues to you as well, as I assume you are an American citizen and taxpayer.
Also, by ensuring that people don’t work excessive hours, or end up as full time caregivers for their aging parents, government can provide the other crucial ingredient for all types of charity – time.
Your system creates the illusion that “those people” are “not my problem” because they must be lazy. Some people would give generously. But many others would free-ride, and the net would be less than charities + government would have provided.
Awww, that’s real nice. And what if there’s not enough money to help the needy, due to the free-rider problem? Is having people starve a healthy transaction? What if people refuse to give based on their prejudices? Is ostracizing poor minority groups a good thing?
To say “it worked for a few decades” is a bit disingenuous. “It” (government/industry collaboration) helped vault several third world countries into first world status. “It” is working in China right now. On the other hand, in Russia we see the results of free market shock therapy. If they didn’t have oil they’d be totally screwed.
No, not making your point, just acknowledging – as you have – that every system has flaws. By and large the interventionist approach has worked for Asia, but it has lead to excesses, hence my “Achilles’ heel” comment (which was - ugh - incorrect usage on my part, I don’t see it as a fatal flaw).
In theory perhaps, but not in outcome. You’re free to take over Utah (or wherever) and prove me wrong.
I still don’t understand this position. How can you say that such an outcome is inevitable? I don’t want to ask for a cite, but can you give me an idea as to how you come to this conclusion?
It was not meant as an insult. I think you’re trying to paint us as picking on you. We’re not.
I’m not saying that libertarians worship corporations. But with the whole hands off approach to business, surely a corporate state of control would arise.
And a lot of government violence in the 20th century was on behalf of big business. Look at all the crap that went on in Latin America. Mostly for the benefit of the corporations who had their operations down there.
Google “United Fruit Company” and see what comes up.
Of course, such actions are very much against libertarianism, not only because of the non-interventionist foreign policy (that most libertarians push) but because the ‘hands-off’ approach to big business also means that the government should not intervene to help, either.
And you point is…? The libertarian position is neither pro-corporation nor anti-corporation. It’s neutral.
Sometimes neutrality amounts to being supportive. On the other hand, sometimes it amounts to being negative. In the case of corporate oversight by the government, it is pro-corp.
In the case under discussion, it was decidedly pro.
Neutrality is neutral. No special favors. It’s really not any more complicated than that.
It also means no regulation in the case that things get out of hand.
That’s pretty vague. Can you clarify what you mean by “no regulation” and “things getting our of hand”? Libertarians do not advocate intervention in foreign affairs. If you think libertarians are interseted in proping up tin-pot dictators so that some company can buy cheap bananas, you are mistaken.
Well, no, I was referring more to domestic economics, income disparity, etc.
Though I see no reason why companies given free reign wouldn’t use their own foreign militias like the gov’t does anyway.
Well, considering that some of those tin pot dictators were directly financed BY said corporations…without OUR government intervening.
I believe Cumayel was running Honduras at one point, they even owned the railroads.
I don’t understand what that has to do with libertarianism. Are you implying that our government is Libertarian?
John, it appears I misunderstood you. What was the point, then, of asking whether governments shed more blood than corporations, if you don’t think that libertarianism would change this state of affairs? Maybe if you could elaborate fully on why this is an important point, it’d help.
Part of my objection to libertarianism is that much of the harm corporations do (and can do) is difficult to track. Proving that your cancer derives from the heightened PCB levels caused by Ajax’s discarded chemical drums can be very difficult; even though libertarianism theoretically provides for trying Ajax for murder, the bar of proof for any specific case is very high.
Nonetheless, on a broad level we can look at epidemiological studies showing that heightened PCB levels increase cancer risks. We know that someone is probably going to get cancer from Ajax’s activities; we just don’t know who.
In our current setup, we can therefore regulate PCBs at every stage of their existence, to prevent their causing a cancer death. In a libertarian society, however, we cannot do that. We can only punish them if we can prove a specific instance of them instituting force or fraud against someone.
Corporations, therefore, have a type of force that they may use with relative impunity. And that makes me very nervous.
As a side-note, I do know that there are libertarians who would allow the country to descend into corporate militia-states; I’ve read Libertarian pamphlets that suggest voluntary funding of the police and military through voluntary taxes, for example. I’ll accept, however, that no one in this thread would advocate such extremist measures.
Daniel
Simply that people seem to take it as a given that governments are benign and that corporations are evil; that government bureaucrats can be trusted to have the peoples’ best interst at heart. The facts do not support that view.
I’m not a member of the Libertarian party, so I could be wrong about this, but if PCBs are a known carcinogen, then a Lib government would not simply wait until cancer deaths occured to prosecute a corporation for releasing it into the envirnoment. I think that in some instances, a Lib government would be stricter on corporations that pollute.
I personally don’t ascribe to that belief, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some Libertarians do. Like I said, I’m not a member of the party. I think most people who call themselves small “l” libertarians recognize that taxes are necesary to fund defense, police, and judiciary at a very minimum. But we (and I’m taking some liberties in using “we” here) would like to see that tax code simplified, more uniform, and used simply to raise revenue for the government (not to direct social behavior in any particular direction).
And one of the biggest problems with government is corruption and lobbies from large companies and industries. I still don’t see how libertarianism solves this problem, other than removing that whole pesky need to buy politicians off and just making it all legal anyway.
Fair enough; I’ll agree with that. I will add the caveat, however, that democratic governments are more directly accountable to me than a corporation is. When a government does something wrong, I can at least vote against them; when a corporation does something wrong, I can only affect them if I was buying from them to begin with.
Our control over our government is, to use the understatement of the year, imperfect. I still see it as a benefit of government power instead of financial power.
Daniel
That’s because you keep forgetting what the companies are buying the politicians for. They want politicians in their pocket for the purpose of passing legislation, interpreting laws, and enforcing the rules in a way that favors them over their competition. If you remove the power of the government to do this, there is no reason for companies to buy politicians.
I find I have to agree with Zagadka, here. I find the intertwining of corporations and government very disturbing. However, we seem to differ in our solutions. I would prefer to give the government less power (and thus make it less of a resource to be bought by companies) while she (and others, apparently) would prefer to give the government more power in the hope that such power will be used to prevent the abuses of other powers.
Let’s assume that we know these two facts. That Ajax is putting PCB’s into the environment and that they can cause cancer. You do not have to limit yourself to proving murder in order to punish Ajax. Does not the “environment” include private property? Certainly in a libertarian society it would. If the actions of Ajax have destroyed the value of someone’s property then Ajax is liable to those property owners. Remember that the Tobacco and Asbestos lawsuits did not have to prove murder.
Now, maybe, in the current regulatory climate, you can find some bureaucrat who will monitor Ajax. Perhaps the amount of PCBs that he decides is safe is actually safe. But notice that you have established a governmental bureau which Ajax now wants to influence. Notice also that you probably have established some rules of “reasonable precautions” behind which Ajax can hide if people or property are contaminated. That is, if the bureaucrats define a set of precautions against PCB contamination, and if Ajax complies with those rules, they have a built in defence in the case that those precautions do not turn out to be addequate in the real world.
But, if you are not buying from them (and so are not being defrauded if that is what they did wrong) and don’t live near them (and so are not being polluted by them if that is what they did wrong) why exactly do you want to do anything to them? I’m not trying to be obtuse, I think I misunderstand your point here. Do you mind expanding on it? Can you give me an example where a business does something “wrong” that does not affect you, but that you nonetheless feel compelled to correct? Or am I reading too much into your “I’m not buying from them” phrase?
It has been said many many times, but not explained even once. This is the pivotal point that I seem to be missing. If the gummint has a strict hands-off policy regarding business, then who will prevent businesses from commiting the abuses that so many fear? This is not a snide remark, nor is it a strawman – I honestly don’t know how lib’ism addresses this, and no one in this thread has yet done so.
I also feel compelled to comment on a couple of other things said in past posts:
- “The government has killed far more people than business has.” Absolutely true, and absolutely meaningless. It would also be true that the Green Berets have killed more people than my pet goldfish, but that doesn’t mean that we should send “Jaws” out on special covert military missions. The government has killed more people because it is in the business of doing so. Had we Fisher-Price in charge of defending our borders, we could say that thay’ve killed millions.
Toto, I think we’re in strawman country.
- “People trust the government absolutely but trust big business not at all.” False dichotomy. I don’t think one person here said that he or she trusts government absolutely. The point is that, theoretically at least, the government is accountable to the people. We trust that they won’t get out of control because they are under our scrutiny. Remove such scrutiny from business, and yes, they will become untrustworthy. Absolute power corrupting yada yada.